There was a question from a retired gay general last night at the Republican CNN/YouTube debate about DADT (note how the Republicans boo and heckle the general):

Republicans are pissed off that General Kerr turned out to be on the LGBT steering committee for Hillary Clinton. Well, that's not really accurate; they're pissed off that someone had the audacity to talk back to their overlords, so they're making up a rule that no one besides Republicans was allowed to ask questions at the YouTube debate.

And now they're already in full Swift Boat formation. More after the jump.

While CNN should have made sure that none of the people invited was actually working for a rival campaign, let's not forget that this topic is fair game as it was asked at another CNN Republican debate and that Republicans are now pointing out other "plants", none of whom work for a Democratic campaign. They just wanted the whole thing to be a Republican circle jerk and further isolate the party from the mainstream.

Because, I guess, a gay general forced out of the military under DADT wouldn't be interested in the topic if it weren't for Hillary forcing him to be.

I really don't get why the fact that the questioner was a Hillary supporter (and a Log Cabin Republican) means that his question is somehow illegitimate. The right's been calling this a "set-up", but it's not like any of them shouldn't have been ready for DADT to come up. Sure, Hunter's answer was beyond ridiculous, implying that there aren't Jews in Israel and Christians in Britain, and Romney came off as his usual flip-flopping, got-some-'splainin'-to-do self, but that's their fault, not Keith Kerr's.

And you can see how the Right treats any of the troops that don't agree with them, especially the queer ones. When General Patraeus was taunted by MoveOn.org as "General Betray Us", conservatives demanded that Congress pass a resolution to condemn the organization's statement. And they got it. How could MoveOn treat a soldier that way? How could they run an ad in a newspaper that said anything bad about someone who's serving his country?

Well, what they have to say about General Kerr is a whole lot worse than anything MoveOn.org could even think of. Here are some actual comments (as Pam usually does) from the Freepers about Keith Kerr:

Face it, old Homos are a Tough Sell.

To bring that Old Fag to the Debate was rediculous to begin with and then find out he’s working the the Clinton Chinese Mafia is completely over the top.

Pray for W and Our Troops

On the plus side this means we can show up to the next democrat debate to plant a question asking “Hillary! If you support gay rights so much, why don’t you just come out of the closet already?”

The homo's might take the time to study the scriptures...that lifestyle is one huge NO NO...

According to his resume he was an officer in Intel during the height of the Cold War. As such, he would have been asked about being a homosexual in order to get his top secret security clearance. He obviously lied, and you can bet your bottom dollar the Soviets knew all about him.

He should be court martialed and have his retirement and rank stripped from him immediately.

Pole smokin’ in the military ain’t Kosher.

Kerr said that he revealed his was gay AFTER he retired. So while he was in the military he adhered to the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy”. So what’s his point, other than being a homosexual activist?

How come he wasn’t planted into the Dem debates to ask the Dem candidates, none of whom think that openly homosexual people should serve in the miliatry either.

This was a blatant attempt by CNN to portray Republicans as anti-gay.

Yeah, I wondered why they gave the pansey so much time. He wasn’t a participant.

The fact that he concealed his sodomitic proclivities in the service is a partial explanation for his success.

He looked like he had AIDS.

I seriously believe the gays are the “anti-Christians”- I believe they are out to destroy Christianity and decent people, and that most of their activists attacks are spiritual (Satanic) in nature!! SERIOUSLY~!

My guess is that most of the you tube questioners were part of some Democrat group or another, there was way too much anger, too many Hispanics and gays

All I kept thinking was, “Wow, hoe does a gay man live that long? He’s clearly out-lived the average gay lifespan. Hmmm, maybe he wasn’t all that promiscuous. Hmmm, maybe he didn’t do the stall tapping thing, stayed out of the bookstores. Hmmm, maybe he isn’t really gay after all...”

And the winner of the most homophobic, most contradictory to MoveOn.org crocodile tears:

Kerr is just a big a POS like scary-kerry and will try to hide behind his (fagginess) for protection.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The minute I hear that garbage from the right I know to discard that individual, immediately.

Usually means big ole closet case in the room -- ignorant, and angry.

I admire the General, and I hope he can bring attention to the issue of including gay men and women in the armed forces, the discrimination is purely based on ignorance, and fear.

How can we neglect so much talent simply on the basis of sexual preference?

Sometimes I'm surprised it's even an issue, it seems so insignificant. Not to minimize, I realize the struggle must be disheartening at times, but the problem is the bigot's, and they project it on to everyone else.

they're making up a rule that no one besides Republicans was allowed to ask questions at the YouTube debate.

But no-one except Democrats were allowed to ask questions of the DNC candidates. Had, say, a former staffer of GWB asked HRC a hardball question, wouldn't MSM and the leftist blogosphere have been incandescent at this Rovian Dirty Trick?

I'm glad the General got to speak. I'm sorry that of course he'd be suspected of being yet another Clinton plant, like so many others. I'm even more sorry that the Democrat candidates got asked such softball questions by sycophants. Both sides should have hard but respectful questions asked of them, by a cross-section of the community.

Tempest in a teapot. Just another example of the right-wing mantra "Any Clinton is a cheat and a liar." Also a good example of the her primary opponents' standard talking points of "She'll be very divisive."

But no-one except Democrats were allowed to ask questions of the DNC candidates.

Actually, most people who asked at the Dem debate didn't have a known political affiliation.

And that's just the thing - it's not like we spent the day after the election running background checks on the questioners, mainly because who they are doesn't render their question illegitimate; the question's bad if the question's bad.

The Right did, because they can't talk substance and needed to just attack credibility.